Re: [h-cost] Meaning of "breeches" in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
"Breeches" is an English term. Like "culotte" is the French term ("sans
culottes" were French revolutionaries who wore "pantalon"). And even "Jodhpurs"
were those riding pants with wide hips (now, just riding pants) worn
traditionally in duh Jodhpur, India. for riding. So I'd say when a 16th
century English writer talks about "breeches"... he really just means whatever
pants local people wear. But saying men in Persia wear no breeches implies they
don't wear tight, knee-length pants. I don't think he would consider full
"persian" pants to be breeches.
-Original Message-
From: Data-Samtak Susan
To: Historical Costume
Sent: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: [h-cost] Meaning of "breeches" in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
In the 21st Century, horseback riding "pants" are still called breeches,
especially the ones that are a few inches shorter and end above the ankle to be
worn inside tall slim boots aka "riding boots".
The longer version that cover the ankle , usually with a cuff, (so not suited
for tucking into tall slim boots comfortably) are sometimes still referred to
as
"jodphurs".
Of curse the Western Wear pants are called Jeans, usually made of denim, but
not
exclusively, which can be tucked into the shorter height Western Boot, or left
covering the boot tops.
Susan
On Jul 20, 12, at 2:41 PM, Jill wrote:
>
> Breeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as
some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) worn
would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written in 16th
and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for someone
to
be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and without clothing,
it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no no).
>
> Jill
>
>
> At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote:
>> I'm trying to determine what the word "breeches" meant - did it mean
underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or
shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries.
>>
>> I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and
i'm trying to determine the implications.
>>
>> I have seen knee-length trousers called "breeches" in parts of 16th c.
>> Europe
- garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing
are
outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya
>> SCA
>> ___
>> h-costume mailing list
>> h-costume@mail.indra.com
>> http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
>
> www.gjh.me.uk
> Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional
> ___
> h-costume mailing list
> h-costume@mail.indra.com
> http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Meaning of "breeches" in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
And with variations, even the 19th C. Men walking about in shirt sleeves without at least a vest, "were naked". -Original Message- From: "Jill" Sent 7/20/2012 2:41:58 PM To: "Historical Costume" Subject: Re: [h-cost] Meaning of "breeches" in late 16th to mid-17th c. EnglishBreeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) worn would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written in 16th and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for someone to be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and without clothing, it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no no). Jill At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote: >I'm trying to determine what the word "breeches" meant - did it mean >underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, >knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through >mid-17th centuries. > >I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no >breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. > >I have seen knee-length trousers called "breeches" in parts of 16th >c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of >European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the >collective wisdom here. > >Thank you. > >Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya >SCA >___ >h-costume mailing list >h-costume@mail.indra.com >http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume www.gjh.me.uk Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Meaning of "breeches" in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
In the 21st Century, horseback riding "pants" are still called breeches, especially the ones that are a few inches shorter and end above the ankle to be worn inside tall slim boots aka "riding boots". The longer version that cover the ankle , usually with a cuff, (so not suited for tucking into tall slim boots comfortably) are sometimes still referred to as "jodphurs". Of curse the Western Wear pants are called Jeans, usually made of denim, but not exclusively, which can be tucked into the shorter height Western Boot, or left covering the boot tops. Susan On Jul 20, 12, at 2:41 PM, Jill wrote: > > Breeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as > some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) > worn would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written > in 16th and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for > someone to be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and > without clothing, it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no > no). > > Jill > > > At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote: >> I'm trying to determine what the word "breeches" meant - did it mean >> underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or >> shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. >> >> I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and >> i'm trying to determine the implications. >> >> I have seen knee-length trousers called "breeches" in parts of 16th c. >> Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European >> clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya >> SCA >> ___ >> h-costume mailing list >> h-costume@mail.indra.com >> http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume > > www.gjh.me.uk > Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional > ___ > h-costume mailing list > h-costume@mail.indra.com > http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Meaning of "breeches" in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
Breeches were and still are outer wear. In Persia the men would have, as some still do today, wear long robes and any trousers (of any desciption) worn would not be immediately apparent. Don't take the description written in 16th and 17th centuries to be valid in modern language. For example - for someone to be seen naked in the 17th century didn't mean to be bare and without clothing, it meant to be seen in your underwear (which was a big no no). Jill At 19:27 20/07/2012, you wrote: I'm trying to determine what the word "breeches" meant - did it mean underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. I have seen knee-length trousers called "breeches" in parts of 16th c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. Thank you. Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya SCA ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume www.gjh.me.uk Growing old is inevitable but growing up is optional ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] Meaning of "breeches" in late 16th to mid-17th c. English
I'm trying to determine what the word "breeches" meant - did it mean underpants only, or did it have other meanings, for example, knee-length or shorter trousers - from the late 16th through mid-17th centuries. I ask because visitors to Persia commented that the men wore no breeches and i'm trying to determine the implications. I have seen knee-length trousers called "breeches" in parts of 16th c. Europe - garments that could be outer wear. As certain details of European clothing are outside my expertise, i am asking the collective wisdom here. Thank you. Urtatim al-Qurtubiyya SCA ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Boning for Edwardian/Titanic Era dresses
Sometimes there was a bit of boning in the gown, as well. ** Every upscale gown from the teens I've seen always has a boned under-structure no matter how draped and flowing the gown is. It usually takes the form of a muslin or glazed cotton sleeveless bodice that ends at the raised waist that is lightly boned front and back and closes with hooks and eyes CF no matter how the gown closes. This is what the drapery of the gown is usually tacked to. Many gowns are made to look like layered garments, sometimes like a high necked bodice with an unstructured draped flowy thing over this all tacked to the boned under- bodice The closings can get ridiculously complicated to make the draped part look like it's just been "thrown" on and it fell perfectly all by itself with all manner of little hooks and eyes or snaps on the side or around the back or on one shoulder...whatever but the boned under-bodice always closes CF. This under- bodice never shows! BTW... zip ties/ cable ties work well for boning this type of structure. They should be narrow, but because of the raised waist, need never bee too long (like 9" -12" at the most). You can use small cable ties from Lowe's. Also... I find the stuff Rose wears in the film "Titanic" to not be very period. Her stuff is beaded to death but the feel and shapes and "logic" of her gowns to me shows the designer doesn't "get" the period. The extras are better dressed. And her clothes are utterly conventional for the time not very "forward" or avant garde like her character is supposed to be. For a REAL high-brow look from this period I suggest you check out the film "Wings of the Dove" designed by Sandy Powell. It's full of uber-rich high society types in forward fashion of the time (especially Charlotte Rampling) -Original Message- From: Marjorie Wilser To: Historical Costume Sent: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 12:12 pm Subject: Re: [h-cost] Boning for Edwardian/Titanic Era dresses I've seen folks use long zip ties for light boning! Ends cut off, of course ;) You can buy heavier-than usual ones at a specialty hardware store, or perhaps a shipping specialty store (not ups! they're consumer grade) ==Marjorie Wilser @..@ @..@ @..@ Three Toad Press http://3toad.blogspot.com/ On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Carol Kocian wrote: > Hi Rachael, > > Sometimes there was a bit of boning in the gown, as well. Even with > a corset, the gown could ride up. Generally it was still whalebone, > split into thinner widths. > > Plastic featherboning is supposed to mimic actual feather shafts > used for boning. I heard that from a friend but don't have any > actual source. Anyway, the featherboning should be enough to keep > the gown seams smooth, it's just not enough support for a corset. > Rigilene is another light stiffener that will work, and is flatter > that featherboning. Something else that works in a pinch is > horsehair braid — I use one piece as a base, and stretch another > piece to zigzag on top of it. The ends have to be tucked into > fabric, though, or else those little nylon strands will poke. > > The good news is, you can add the seam boning after the gown is > made, so you can try it on first to see if you need it. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Boning for Edwardian/Titanic Era dresses
I've seen folks use long zip ties for light boning! Ends cut off, of course ;) You can buy heavier-than usual ones at a specialty hardware store, or perhaps a shipping specialty store (not ups! they're consumer grade) ==Marjorie Wilser @..@ @..@ @..@ Three Toad Press http://3toad.blogspot.com/ On Jul 20, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Carol Kocian wrote: Hi Rachael, Sometimes there was a bit of boning in the gown, as well. Even with a corset, the gown could ride up. Generally it was still whalebone, split into thinner widths. Plastic featherboning is supposed to mimic actual feather shafts used for boning. I heard that from a friend but don't have any actual source. Anyway, the featherboning should be enough to keep the gown seams smooth, it's just not enough support for a corset. Rigilene is another light stiffener that will work, and is flatter that featherboning. Something else that works in a pinch is horsehair braid — I use one piece as a base, and stretch another piece to zigzag on top of it. The ends have to be tucked into fabric, though, or else those little nylon strands will poke. The good news is, you can add the seam boning after the gown is made, so you can try it on first to see if you need it. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Boning for Edwardian/Titanic Era dresses
Hi Rachael, Sometimes there was a bit of boning in the gown, as well. Even with a corset, the gown could ride up. Generally it was still whalebone, split into thinner widths. Plastic featherboning is supposed to mimic actual feather shafts used for boning. I heard that from a friend but don't have any actual source. Anyway, the featherboning should be enough to keep the gown seams smooth, it's just not enough support for a corset. Rigilene is another light stiffener that will work, and is flatter that featherboning. Something else that works in a pinch is horsehair braid — I use one piece as a base, and stretch another piece to zigzag on top of it. The ends have to be tucked into fabric, though, or else those little nylon strands will poke. The good news is, you can add the seam boning after the gown is made, so you can try it on first to see if you need it. -Carol On Jul 20, 2012, at 3:54 AM, Rachel Stimson wrote: I am making myself a version of a 1909 Directoire dress to go to my sisters wedding in and the pattern calls for the bodice to be boned. I was going to wear a corset underneath, partly becuase it is so much easier to stand up for long periods of time, do I still need to bone? Does anyone know what boning was used in the originals? Thanks Rachel ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Interesting underwear find
Hi, I haven't been able to keep up with all of this thread, but I just wanted to make sure you have seen this: http://www.uibk.ac.at/urgeschichte/projekte_forschung/textilien-lengberg/medieval-lingerie-from-lengberg-castle-east-tyrol.html which must be more current than the NESAT abstract in that the carbon dating results are back. Also, pictures. Lauren - Original Message - From: "Beteena Paradise" To: "Historical Costume" Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 3:18:47 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] Interesting underwear find Agreed that it is more interesting than the Daily Mail story, but unfortunately not the one which will stick in the average person's mind. ;-) One of the places that had gotten the Daily Mail stories linked to that. Medievalists maybe? Teena From: Marie Stewart To: Historical Costume Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [h-cost] Interesting underwear find The Daily Mail Article is 'interesting' but the more interesting piece is the summary of the presentation from the NESAT conference. You can find it here. http://www.nesat.org/abstracts/lecture_nutz.pdf I sent out both links initially, but not to HCost, ah well. There's more information out there. I'm still finding items on it. Bridgette On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Beteena Paradise < bete...@mostlymedieval.com> wrote: > I tried to read the BBC story but you have to have a subscription, > unfortunately. However, I did notice that every news story out there seemed > to stem from the Daily Mail story. And that is too bad. I am not > discounting the importance of the find and the resulting research that will > be available. That is awesome. What I find annoying is all of the headlines > and news stories that say "Medieval women wore skimpy linen bras and > knickers." > > Teena > > > > From: Kate Bunting > To: "h-cost...@indra.com" > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:16 AM > Subject: Re: [h-cost] Interesting underwear find > > ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] Boning for Edwardian/Titanic Era dresses
I am making myself a version of a 1909 Directoire dress to go to my sisters wedding in and the patter calls for the bodice to be boned. I was going to wear a corset underneath, partly becuase it is so much easier to stand up for long periods of time, do I still need to bone? Does anyone know what boning was used in the originals? Thanks Rachel ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Nell Gwyn
I'd like to thank everyone who has sent information and links to images: they have given me a much better idea of how Nell would have appeared. And I apologise for taking so long to respond - the power supply plug on my computer went wrong and had to be replaced. (Grrr!) Linda Walton, (in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, U.K.). On 10/07/2012 22:53, Linda Walton wrote: I found this in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: "Pepys saw Nell again on 1 May 1667, standing at her lodgings' door in Drury Lane (off Bridges Street, the site of the King's Theatre), ‘in her smock sleeves and bodice … she seemed a mighty pretty creature’ (Pepys, 8.193)." Please, I'd very much like to know what Nell Gwyn was wearing: can anyone suggest an illustration which might help? Linda Walton. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] 15-century clothing finds--needle lace techniques
http://www.uibk.ac.at/urgeschichte/projekte_forschung/textilien-lengberg/index.html.en Fran Lavolta Press Books on historic sewing and needlework www.lavoltapress.com www.facebook.com/LavoltaPress ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Interesting underwear find
Agreed that it is more interesting than the Daily Mail story, but unfortunately not the one which will stick in the average person's mind. ;-) One of the places that had gotten the Daily Mail stories linked to that. Medievalists maybe? Teena From: Marie Stewart To: Historical Costume Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [h-cost] Interesting underwear find The Daily Mail Article is 'interesting' but the more interesting piece is the summary of the presentation from the NESAT conference. You can find it here. http://www.nesat.org/abstracts/lecture_nutz.pdf I sent out both links initially, but not to HCost, ah well. There's more information out there. I'm still finding items on it. Bridgette On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Beteena Paradise < bete...@mostlymedieval.com> wrote: > I tried to read the BBC story but you have to have a subscription, > unfortunately. However, I did notice that every news story out there seemed > to stem from the Daily Mail story. And that is too bad. I am not > discounting the importance of the find and the resulting research that will > be available. That is awesome. What I find annoying is all of the headlines > and news stories that say "Medieval women wore skimpy linen bras and > knickers." > > Teena > > > > From: Kate Bunting > To: "h-cost...@indra.com" > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:16 AM > Subject: Re: [h-cost] Interesting underwear find > > ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
